The analysis and solution of Paul’s case

A:
The contract between Paul and Bagel Parkson is not been frustrate.
Frustration is the situation where an unexpected event occurs, for which neither party is responsible, with the result that the very basis of the contract is destroyed. For the successful pleading of frustration, there are three essentials must be satisfied.
1) The even occurs which was outside the contemplation of the parties.
On the other words, both of the parties did not predict what things will happen.
The case of it is Jackson V Union Marine Insurance.
2) The contract, if performed, would be different contract from that entered into.
That is to say, if the particular of the contract has change, the contract is different. The case is Krell V Henry.
3) The event is one for which neither party is responsible for.
That is both of the parties can not control things will happen.
The contract between Paul and Bagel Parkson had destroyed without the three essentials above. Bagel Parkson was arrested by the police in his hotel room for drug possession and consumption. That is a personal problem of Bagel Parkson. If Bagel Parkson did not have drug in his room, then police would not arrest him, then he can performance. But he had drug in his room, he crime make police arrested him. That is say, he make the performance can not precede. The fact of this case is similar to Maritime National Fish V Ocean Trawlers. （Chandran, R., P114）There is a case, there is a requirement that vessels with trawls be licensed, then if you have 5 vessels and only 3 licenses, then you can not claim that your inability to use all the vessels, amounts to a frustrating event such as to excuse you from payment of the hire fee for the vessel. So, can not use 5 vessels is because only has 3 licenses. If this person has 5 licenses, then he can use 5 vessels.
So, the contract between Paul and Bagel Parkson is not been frustrated.

B:
Paul can claim damages from Bagel Parkson for breach of contract.
Paul was do nothing wrong in the contract between he and Bagel Parkson. But because of Bagel Parkson was arrested by the police in his hotel room for drug possession and consumption. Bagel Parkson can not perform in the concert. So, he is breach of contract. In this case, that is Bagel Parkson’s wrong for drug possession and consumption. Cause of he is drug possession and consumption, he getting himself arrested by the police. Then he is breached his contract for can not perform his performance in the concert.
A party to the contract may commit a breach of contract by:
1) By repudiating his liability under the contract before the time for performance is due. And the repudiation can be actual or anticipatory.
On the other words, one of the parties directly declares that he will not perform his part of the contract. Or by some action which makes future performance impossible. The case of it is Avery V Bowden.
2) By his own act of disabling himself from performing the contract.
That is say, because of one party’s behaviours make himself can not perform the contract. The case of it is Synge V Synge.
The case of Paul is very similar to the case of Synge V Synge. The case of Synge V Synge narrates that a man agrees before marriage to settle a house on his wife after marriage; he subsequently conveyed the house to the third party. The court held that his wife could bring an action for breach of contract. It is say that the man can give his wife house but he conveyed the house to the third party. That is his behaviour to make he can not perform the contract between he and his wife. So, his wife can sue him for breach of contract.
Back to the case of Paul, Bagel Parkson had drug possession and consumption makes he can not perform the contract between he and Paul. So, Paul can sue Bagel Parkson for breach of contract.

C:
A breach of condition gives the injured party the option to affirm the contract or discharge the contract. In either case he may also sue for damages. That is to say, a condition is the factor that injured party to sure what the contract is. A condition is a vital term of a contract which goes to the root of the contract. A condition is the reason why the contract was made. The case about this is Wallis V Pratt. A breach of warranty does not give the give the injured party the right to discharge the contract. The contract remains in force and the injured party can only sue for damages. On the other words, the injured party can not discharge the contract because of warranty. A warranty is not a vital term in a contract, but one which is merely subsidiary, which is does not go to the root of the contract, a breach of which gives no right to rescind but only an action for damages for the loss which he has suffered. The cases about this are Bettini V Gye.
In this case, the condition is the concert goers bought a concert tickets to see the top performance which is done by Bagel Parkson. But Paul arranged for a local singer who is named Toothpick Basket to replace Bagel Parkson. So, the root of the contract is change. It means that condition is breached. Since the condition is breached, Paul is breach of the contract between him and concert goers. A condition is breached, it entitles the concert goers to rescind the contract and claim damages for non-performance. So, Paul must give the damages to the concert goers because he broken the condition –-- breach of the contract.

D:
Paul can sue Bagel Parkson for damages.
In Paul’s case, Paul has a contract with Bagel Parkson that Bagel Parkson had a performance in his concert. But Bagel Parkson did not perform his part in the contract. So, Bagel Parkson breach of contract. At the final analysis, Paul can sue Bagel Parkson for damages due to he breach of the contract.
The main purpose of unliquidated damages is to restore the party who as suffered the loss to the same position as if the contract had been performed properly. The case about this is Robinson V Harman. In Paul’s case, Paul can require Bagel Parkson for damages. Paul does his part well in the contract. But Bagel did not perform his part in the contract, and then makes Paul suffered loss. So, Bagel Parkson must compensate for Paul’s loss.
The four factors for unliquidated damages are: 1) Causation. For damages to success, the loss must have been caused by the breach of contract. The case of this is Monarch SS Co V Karlshamns Olijefabriker. In Paul’s case, Bagel Parkson had a contract with Paul that he must perform a performance in Paul’s concert. But at the final, Bagel Parkson did not perform. So, Bagel Parkson breach of contract. 2) Remoteness. The defendant will only be held liable for the plaintiff’s losses if they are generally foreseeable or if the plaintiff tells the defendant about any special circumstances in advance. The case of this is Hadley V Baxendale. In Paul’s case, Bagel Parkson was arrest by the police in the last day before the performance. Bagel Parkson known the date of the performance, but he still make himself arrest by police. So, Bagel Parkson breach of contract. 3) Mitigation. Mitigation simply means that a party can not recover loss which he could have avoided. The case of this is Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd V Kwan Yong Construction Pte Ltd. In Paul’s case, that is Bagel Parkson breach of the contract because of his drug possession and consumption. He can avoid that, but he still did that, he can not recover his loss. So, he must compensate for Paul. 4) Assessment. Damages awarded to an injured party can be classified under two headings: damages for loss of profit and damages for wasted expenditure. The case about this is Anglia Television Ltd V Reed. So, in Paul’s case, Bagel Parkson must compensate Paul for Paul’s loss to compensate to the concert goers. And all of Paul’s loss due to Bagel Parkson breach of the contract.

Reference:
Chandran, R. 2010. Introduction to Business Law in Singapore. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).